How much better is the IQ of the 5D2 compared to my 450D (XSI)

It probably sounds like a stupid question and I am sure I have asked it before, but I suppose I just need a sanity check before I make a purchase.

I have been shooting for quite a long time and over the years have owned various pro bodies (albeit Nikon). For the last few years I have been shooting with the XSI. Honestly I love the output from this camera: sharp, superb color rendition and white balance, good tonality, etc. I use this camera exclusively with the 50 1.8 and I am constantly impressed by the output.

I have the money for the 5D2 and no I am not looking for a lens upgrade for my current body, but as I shoot portraiture 99.9% of the time and desire the ultimate in IQ the 5D2 does seem to be a match for my requirements, that being said I often wonder just how much better the 5D2 truly is, even when compared with the rather inexpensive XSI. There are those on this board who will state that the difference is rather huge while there are those who will state that the differences are subtle at lower ISOs. I myself can't really tell by looking at samples posted on this forum, in fact I can rarely tell the differences between any Canon body mostly due to the fact that image parameters are pretty much equalized across Canon's platform. So jumping from a body which I paid $450 to one which costs $2000, I really want to know - is it *honestly* that much better ?

As most will tell you, the 5D II really shines in low light situations. I can tell the difference in most everyday shots compared with my 7D, 50D, 40D and Rebel XT. So it really depends on what kind of shooting you do. If it's sports, the 5D II struggles a bit to focus on moving objects, but excels at anything stationary.

watson76 wrote in post #14312787
It probably sounds like a stupid question and I am sure I have asked it before, but I suppose I just need a sanity check before I make a purchase.

I have been shooting for quite a long time and over the years have owned various pro bodies (albeit Nikon). For the last few years I have been shooting with the XSI. Honestly I love the output from this camera: sharp, superb color rendition and white balance, good tonality, etc. I use this camera exclusively with the 50 1.8 and I am constantly impressed by the output.

I have the money for the 5D2 and no I am not looking for a lens upgrade for my current body, but as I shoot portraiture 99.9% of the time and desire the ultimate in IQ the 5D2 does seem to be a match for my requirements, that being said I often wonder just how much better the 5D2 truly is, even when compared with the rather inexpensive XSI. There are those on this board who will state that the difference is rather huge while there are those who will state that the differences are subtle at lower ISOs. I myself can't really tell by looking at samples posted on this forum, in fact I can rarely tell the differences between any Canon body mostly due to the fact that image parameters are pretty much equalized across Canon's platform. So jumping from a body which I paid $450 to one which costs $2000, I really want to know - is it *honestly* that much better ?

The difference is noticeable if you are concerned about absolute quality. I upgraded from a 30D to a 7D, and no noticeable difference for most shots. Then to a FF 5D2, and yeah it's noticeable simply because of the bokeh factor. the 24-70 F2.8 FF acts like a 17-50 F2 on a crop (no such lens exist).

Without even going to ff, you can do this test on a crop. Shoot with a 17-50mm F2.8 for half a day, then switch to the 18-50 kit lens for the other half. Can you see the difference? Well that's pretty much what happens when you switch to FF. You're on another level at that point.

btw, I shot with the xs for a weekend to get samples for my BIL. Great camera, and I felt that quality was excellent, but ergonomics was absolute killer. For what you do, the 5D2 might not give what you're looking for (assuming you shoot with strobes and stopped down). For other scenarios, FF definitely produces better photos.

The 5DII would be quite a nice upgrade... If you only ever print 8x10s and post images online, you will struggle to see the difference. But if you ever print large, or crop heavily for that matter, the 5DII will have a more clear advantage. You get considerably more fine detail in the FF image. But it mostly shows up in big prints and other, higher resolution usage.

It's more subtle, but the FF camera also offers a bit wider dynamic range, so will hold detail in highlights and/or shadows a little better. I have not shot with any of the 12MP models like the 450D/XSi, so am not sure how it performs at high ISO. But I find my 5DII usable one stop higher than the 7Ds I also use, and about two stops higher than the 50Ds I used to shoot with.

Perhaps because of all the extra resolution, the FF camera also gives smoother gradations... which you'll see in blurred backgrounds, for example.

Your 50mm won't be the greatest portrait lens on a FF camera. If you like it's angle of view on the cropper, you'll want an 85mm for use on the FF.

The 5DII really is ideal for portraiture. Using the same lenses, you work in closer to get the same framing you got with a crop camera, and when using larger apertures that makes for potentially shallower depth of field effects. At the same time, because the FF camera's sensor is less crowded, it's pixel sites larger, it allows smaller apertures before diffraction takes significant effect. So, in a sense, you get a wider range of usable apertures or more control over DOF. (Note: Just to clarify, if you change focal length to compensate or just work from the same distances and frame more loosely, DOF remains the same... It changes, becomes more dramatic, when you move closer to compensate for the FF camera's angle of view with any given lens.)

The main "complaint" against the 5DII is it's AF system... But it's at least equivalent to what you have now and perfectly capable for stationary subjects such as most portraiture.

Only you can say if the extra cost is worth it to you. Maybe you should rent a 5DII and shoot with it for a few days, to make your own comparison.

5DII also is a more pro-oriented camera, with additional durability built right in. It's rated for 150,000 shutter cycles, where your xxxD series camera is probably rated for 75,000 clicks. The viewfinde will seem quite big and bright, by comparison. You get interchangeable focus screens and Micro Adjust features with 5DII, too. You will notice the size and weight, and that the FF camera's shutter and mirror are louder. No built in flash... but that's not much of a loss (IMO).

Why don't you rent one and tell us what you think?

You will probably have a more unbiased opinion from somebody that forked over $2500 for a FF...

It depends what you do with your photos. For Facebook, Flickr and 4x6 prints the XSI is plenty. Print larger than 8x12 and it's Triple A vs. the Yankees.